From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jun 13 12:04:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 13 Jun 2001 19:04:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 83956 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 19:04:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Jun 2001 19:04:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 19:04:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.38.17853740 (3985) for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38.17853740.28591317@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:03:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] An approach to attitudinals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_38.17853740.28591317_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_38.17853740.28591317_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2001 12:39:20 AM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes: > E. An attitudinal attached to a sumti does not assert the sentence to be > true IF the attitudinal is not: > Attitudinals DO NOT ASSERT anything, so cannot be true or false. This "rule" does not make sense. Since attitudinals don't assert anyhting, they don't strictly imply anything either (maybe only a terminological problem?) And so on. This seem essentially to do away with attitudinals as such and replace them with only assertions about my mental states. --part1_38.17853740.28591317_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2001 12:39:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
ragnarok@pobox.com writes:


E. An attitudinal attached to a sumti does not assert the sentence to be
true IF the attitudinal is not:


Attitudinals DO NOT ASSERT anything, so cannot be true or false.  This "rule"
does not make sense.  

<F. An attitudinal attached to the selbri implies that the bridi is true but
doesn't actually assert it.>
Since attitudinals don't assert anyhting, they don't strictly imply anything
either (maybe only a terminological problem?)

And so on.  This seem essentially to do away with attitudinals as such and
replace them with only assertions about my mental states.  
--part1_38.17853740.28591317_boundary--